A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

So said constitutional scholar and Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 — the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.

Obama did win the support of Gabon in the Security Council, but failed with Germany. With a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil, Russia, India or China. All four abstained.

This is not the world’s war. This is Obama’s war.

The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.

“To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation,” said Vice Adm. William Gortney.

“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.

In his Friday ultimatum, he said, “We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.”

Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi’s compound?

So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck Libya that the Arab League is bailing out. League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss attacks that have “led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians.” We asked for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the “bombardment of civilians.”

What caused Obama’s about-face from the Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone on Libya was an unwise act of war?

According to The New York Times, National Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N. envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.

They did not want to be seen as standing by when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.

While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome. No question who wears the pants here.

As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama and NATO. Hence, we must now finish him and his regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another Lockerbie.

The Arab League and African Union are denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For eastern Libya provided more than its fair share of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.

Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S. intervention to prevent “unspeakable atrocities,” security police of Yemen’s President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.

Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran, would U.S. protests have been so muted?

In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.

This crackdown on Bahrain’s Shia has been denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world, ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.

Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and in Iraq after the Americans ousted the Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.

They are a majority in Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.

Riyadh must have regarded the threat to Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian war.

Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, “If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?”

Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans — a few more than have died in Gadhafi’s four-week war.

Pat, as you undoubtedly know, the principle foreign policy goal of the Lincoln Administration was to keep foreign powers out of OUR civil war, and they were successful in achieving that aim. Apparently, what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander, as the U.S. has an inexplicable inability to avoid entanglements in other countries’ civil wars.

Well, President Obama goes to a transnational body, the U. N., to get “authorization” for offensive war against Libya, instead of to the American Peoples’ representitives, the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

You can’t have any more loss of soverignty than that.

A transnational body’s authorization for war is more important than the American People’s representitives…????

“President Baraq Hussein, Jr. has just made an example out of bombing Libya as President Ronald Reagan did make an example out of invading Grenada.”

Bit of a stretch…although we are hearing a lot about Grenada lately, now that both the neo-cons and liberal Democrats are demonstrating an unbridled taste for wars of aggression. Talking points must be going out somewhere.

Grenada happened after a Communist coup that Reahan suspected to be Cuban in origin. This was during the Cold War. He invoked the Monroe Doctrine, since Grenada was a Caribbean island in North America. No nation building occurred, no permanent U.S. base, no bombing the hell out of civilians, no fancy media spin depicting the little five-minute war as an act of humanitarianism.

“Perhaps the accusations of rape against Assange are just the global elite’s way of welcoming him to the club.”

This made me laugh so hard I had to repeat it. On a more serious note, another day, another illegal war. It’s never going to stop until we either go broke or toss out every single Republocrat from our government.

As a Democrat, i refuse to support the President. I will not just go along just to go along. Not our fight, we don’t know who were helping. Al-Qaeda is calling for Gadhafi to go. Yes, Gadhafi did do Lockerbie, but President Bush and Condi Rice wanted to bring him in from the cold. Once again, we don’t know who were helping, do i need to repeat that?

Under the War Powers Resolution passed by your Congress over a Presidential veto, your President is empowered to use military force for 60 days without seeking a Congressional declaration of war, and is allowed a further 30 days to withdraw all forces, as long as he informs Congress of what he plans to do beforehand. That Resolution has never been challenged in court and the US Supreme Court has never declared it unconstitutional, so it’s currently the law of the land.

The WPR includes language spelling out under what terms your President is allowed to use this military force without seeking a Congressional declaration of war. One of those terms is when there is ‘specific statutory authorisation’ passed by Congress.

The statutory authority in this case being the United Nations Participation Act, passed by Congress, which allows the President to deploy American military forces in support of United Nations resolutions without seeking Congressional approval.

“The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein”

And here’s Article 42 itself;

“Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

So, in short, when you say it’s unconstitutional, you’re either lying, or you haven’t even bothered to check, or both.

The idea of Pat Buchanan lecturing us all on the limits of the War Powers Act is only exceeded by the pathetic comparison of the Libyan government’s depredations with Lincoln’s response to the firing on Fort Sumter. What a pathetic exercise in hypocritical victimhood…time for a Yankee song:

Youtube has a lot of these brain-washing siren songs for sheeple. So, maybe if you wear yourself out listening to them, you might try instead using that mass of currently unused cells between your ears, for a refreshing change. 😉

Superb, accurate, and insightful analysis by the great Pat Buchanan. A pleasure to read and from which to learn the truth of the matter. Or is there something Pat has wrong on the issue of the US attack on Libya?

We’ll just have to wait and see if the anti war democrats who voted for Obama will support him in the next election. To be fair he never was truly anti war as he campaigned on winning the unwinnable war in Afghanistan. When I’m in the former Soviet Union and people ask me what I think about Obama I tell them he’s the “chornaya Bush” or “Black Bush” in English. On foreign policy they never were that different and now Obama has even adopted Dubyas policy on regime change and democracy promotion in the middle east
.

Congress shall declare war, period, basic black and white. For one man to do so is a dictator no matter what article is installed giving such power as the power for Obama to assassinate anyone he cares to, or torture. We must wake people up that we live under a psychopathic government which we DO NOT vote in, money and a rigged election system, we are NOT represented. I can not imagine who will vote this coming election since it is a one party system and the agenda of invasion, occupation and draconian laws will pursue.

“He provided the CIA with the names of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) operatives and the Libyan Islamists who trained in Afghanistan, as well as dossiers of LIFG leaders living in Britain. Analysts describe the knowledge gained by the CIA provided by Moussa Koussa extremely valuable, and in the light of the central role of Libyan Afghans in al-Qaeda, this was a major intelligence windfall for the Bush administration.”

Democrat here, who isn’t for us getting into Libya. I don’t think this is as bad as Iraq was, not yet. We’re not in some giant ground war yet. As long as it’s dropping bombs form afar, I disagree with it, but don’t really see a gigantic issue with it. There is a Human Rights angle at work here, and I know most conservatives don’t like to think of people living outside our borders as humans, but they are.

And for the record, the fundamental difference between Libya and Iraq is that in Iraq, we were the aggressors. In Libya, we’re aiding the Libyan people.

Again, don’t agree with it, but I’m not radically opposed to it either.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it agian. If I am a dictator in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world I would be looking for a partnership with Russia and China and not the US or EU. It’s to late for Ghaddafi but if I was him I would have provided a Mediterranean naval port for the Russians and oil for the Chinese in return for a guaranteed veto against UN sanctions and or US/Nato airstrikes.

Jim Evans – “Stop this offensive war where the “authorization” is from the U. N. not the Congress.”

Having trouble reading comments?

The U.S. Congress passed a resolution a – very – long time ago that authorised the President to use U.S. military assets in support of United Nations Resolutions, like the one that passed just a few days ago.

If you don’t like it, fine, go complain to your Congressman and Senator and get Congress to change the law. But don’t pretend that there’s anything outrageous in a President using the powers Congress has allowed him to do some good for a change.

I know, I know, “Someone is being wrong on the Internet”, but the one-note repetition of failed talking-points is just plain boring.

“There is a Human Rights angle at work here, and I know most conservatives don’t like to think of people living outside our borders as humans, but they are.”

I think people living outside our borders are humans, and I believe that many of those humans are Muslims who often kill each other, whether in Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan or whatever Muslim country is involved in a civil war. What I don’t understand is why the mother and father of an American Christian soldier should sacrifice their son to save the lives of Muslims. Let them kill each other. It’s none of my business. I don’t lose any sleep at night worrying about Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans or any of the other Muslims around the world, just as they don’t lose any sleep worrying about Christians. It’s a cruel world governed by a cruel God—if you have any doubt read the Old Testament. It’s remarkable what a blood thirsty SOB that Judeo-Christian God is.

TonyJ, rather than calling Buchanan either a liar or ignorant, you ought to make the distinction between Constitutional authority and Congressional bills.

There is no authority in the Constitution which would allow a President to attack another country which presents no threat to the U.S. If the War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress, it simply joins a pile of other laws that Congress has passed– approximately two-thirds of which are unconstitutional. There was no Constitutional amendment.

Because these laws have not been challenged at the Supreme Court does not mean that they are Constitutional.

If you are a proponent of nation building you should consider seeking out the Peace Corps or religious or humanitarian relief organizations.

Tony J, presented Evans, comment: “Stop this offensive war where the “authorization” is from the U. N. not the Congress.”

And, Tont J, responeded: “Having trouble reading comments?”

No. I read your comment.

But my statement is still 100% correct..

Where did Obama get his authorization?

It wasn’t the Congress, Obama went to the U. N.

Hey, I don’t approve of a third war in the Middle East, and I certainly don’t approve of a CIA coup against Gaddafi that requires the U. S. to go to war to protect the “rebels”, especially when there is strong evidence which connects the “rebels” to Al-quaeda. I don’t appreciate the possibly we’re on the same side as al-Quaeda.

What is the U. S. doing there?

Who are the “rebels”?

Tony J, you never answered that question.

Tony J. who are the rebels?

“Stop this offensive war where the “authorization” is from the U. N. not the Congress.?

Damn right, I meant it.

So, Tony J, you down with a third war in the Middle East?

A war of opportunity where no National Interest of the United States is at issue?

So, Tony J, you down with the U. N. being the “authorizing body” for when the U. S. goes to war?

Any time someone starts a comment like “Pat’s either lying or doesn’t know what he’s talking about” I smell an agenda.

Yeah, OK, you made your point, some Constitutional experts do disagree.

But then you can’t let it alone. That adds to the smell.

The “and pursuant to such special agreement” and Article 43 are worth contemplating.

But then, you’re right and everyone else is either “lying or [unchecked] or both. Or repeating talking points. Sure. Congress makes blunders but bad legislation cannot itself change the clear wording of the Constitution. Nor should the U.S. be a territory of the U.N., a vassal state.

Maybe someday a president will arise who will face the issue not with hubris, smug in his power, but with humility, and make his case to Congress.

One easy answer would be a Constitutional amendment — and another would be a successful challenge to the WPR.

I liked this. Wish you would finally admit the GOP is as bad as Obama ALL of the time, and then I’d back you in a Senate race. Unfortunately you’re based in DC aren’t you Mr. Buchanan. Anyway, that’s not important, what’s important is you’ve been saying we need to abandon all our bases overseas and mind our own business since the fall of the wall. More or less. You were against the first round of the Gulf War [91] as was I and so your opinion still means something. … … … Unless you back McCain for pickin Palin. ;]

“There is no authority in the Constitution which would allow a President to attack another country which presents no threat to the U.S.”

Yes there is. Congress can delegate some of its powers as it sees fit under the ‘Necessary and Proper Clause”. They did that with the War Powers Resolution, and your President is sticking to its terms.

“If the War Powers Resolution was passed by Congress, it simply joins a pile of other laws that Congress has passed– approximately two-thirds of which are unconstitutional. There was no Constitutional amendment.”

What do you mean ‘if’? It was passed, over a Presidential veto. Until a court rules on it, the Constitution says the President has to abide by it.

” Because these laws have not been challenged at the Supreme Court does not mean that they are Constitutional.”

I’m sorry, but that’s not true. Congress makes the laws, and until the Supreme Court says they’re unconstitutional, that’s the law of the land.

There’s a real disconnect here between people who – rightly, IMHO – think that Congress has abdicated its responsibility for declaring war in an unconstitutional way, and people who say “Yeah, that law is unconstitutional, but since neither you or I are actually on the Supreme Court, our opinions have zero legal authority.”

Sorry, but no. You don’t get to claim that you’re 100% correct when you’ve been shown where you’re 100% wrong.

Congress authorised US involvement in UN enforcement operations back in 1945, and it set the terms for when a President could legally mobilise US armed forces without a declaration of war back in 1973.

Obama has played by Congress’s rules here, end of story.

As to your question about ‘who the rebels are’, they’re the Libyan civilians the UN passed a Resolution to protect from a dictator who said he was going to exterminate them. America is providing the capability to let the UN enforce its Resolution. All above board and perfectly legal, as I’ve explained.

My own country is part of the same international coalition, it’s just that over here we don’t hear the words ‘United Nations’ and reach for our tinfoil hats. It’s an international body that doesn’t get to do anything unless its member states provide the means for it to carry out – their – will. The car doesn’t drive itself.

“Any time someone starts a comment like “Pat’s either lying or doesn’t know what he’s talking about” I smell an agenda.”

The agenda here is pretty simple. It’s to point out that Pat either deliberately lied when he claimed US involvement in the No-Fly Zone over Libya is unconstitutional, or he didn’t bother to check the facts first.

For the record, I think there’s zero chance that Pat hasn’t heard about the War Powers Resolution or the United Nations Participation Act in his long career. So I come down firmly on the side of ‘liar’.

How does this:

“Yeah, OK, you made your point, some Constitutional experts do disagree.”

mesh with this:

“But then, you’re right and everyone else is either “lying or [unchecked] or both.”

There’s a vast, echoing canyon of space between acknowledging that some people (including every President since Nixon) thinks the WPR is unconstitutional and the claim in the piece that what Obama has authorised is in any way a violation of the Constitution. They’re both statements of fact, but what do they have to do with one another?

Until such a time as a court rules on the matter and then the Supreme Court provides a final verdict, bad legislation really – does – have the force of law. You may not like it, but that’s been the case here since the WPR was passed with a veto-proof bipartisan majority 38 years ago.

“Nor should the U.S. be a territory of the U.N., a vassal state.”

There are no territories of the UN, and no vassal states. Save the hyperbole.

“Maybe someday a president will arise who will face the issue not with hubris, smug in his power, but with humility, and make his case to Congress.”

I think we can both agree that this would be a good thing, but then it would come down to whether or not Congress actually wants to meet its responsibilities. IMHO, you’d stand a better chance of seeing it happen with a Democrat than a Republican, but YMMV.

“One easy answer would be a Constitutional amendment — and another would be a successful challenge to the WPR.”

Exactly. But neither of them would make anything the White House has done over Libya retrospectively unconstitutional. That’s not how it works.

Sorry, Tony, but you are ignoring what I stated and instead inserting you own interpretation.

Evans wrote: “Where did Obama get his authorization?

It wasn’t the Congress, Obama went to the U. N.”

Now, you can say Congress delegated who is legally entitled to give “authorization”, and Congress delegated that authority to the U. N., but that does not change the fact that Obama went to the U. N. for “authorization” and not the Congress.

Tony J, you are intellectually dishonest and I wouldn’t listen to a single thing you have to say at this point, based on your demonstrated lack of veracity.

And willingness to engage in dissembling.

Tony J. wrote: “As to your question about ‘who the rebels are’, they’re the Libyan civilians the UN passed a Resolution to protect from a dictator who said he was going to exterminate them. America is providing the capability to let the UN enforce its Resolution. All above board and perfectly legal, as I’ve explained.”

Total dodge. And, more to the point, you know it is a total dodge — just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Of course, Tony J, knew what I was referring to, such as, are they al-Quaeda, did they support terrorism in Iraq against Americans, are they drug deallers, do they actually believe in ‘democracy’ or is that just empty words used to manipulate U. S. public opinion.

Are these “rebels” part of a CIA coup?

Do we launch a third Middle East war to support a CIA coup that could blow up in our faces.

Is this what We, Americans, want done in our name, when nobody bothers to tell us?

Tony J. wrote: “My own country is part of the same international coalition, it’s just that over here we don’t hear the words ‘United Nations’ and reach for our tinfoil hats.”

Well, you haven’t identified your country.

But the U. S. is a different country and most Americans don’t want to take our marching orders from the U. N.

Maybe, you do, that is the difference between your pathetic little crap country and Americans and America.

You guys don’t have the military capability to go alone so you have to drag America into the fight to be your ‘big daddy’. Well, I’m for one tired of being somebody else’s ‘big daddy’/